that convicted and executed murderer Roger Coleman was in fact responsible for the murder of his sister in law. Although Coleman went to his death proclaiming his innocence, Virginia Gov. Mark Warner announced that testing on DNA taken from sperm proved Coleman committed the 1981 rape and murder of his sister-in-law, Wanda McCoy.

Wow. He was in fact guilty, despite all his protestations to the contrary. Imagine that.

"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography

I find it very disturbing that one has to prove that a person was guilty after the execution. That means there was room for error and that the death penalty should never been applied. The verdict before execution should be conclusion, if that’s not the case you can never apply this type of punishment. This time you just got lucky.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 2):Quoting Halls120 (Thread starter):
In news that will be surely ignored by all the anti-death penalty crowd

People are not just opposed to the death penalty because of the countless innocent that have been executed.

I understand that, and respect the opinions of those that oppose the death penalty. However, the Coleman case was going to be the watershed case that brought the death penalty to its knees. That scumbag convinced a lot of people he was innocent, and he's probably laughing his ass off wherever he is that he hoodwinked so many honest people.

"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography

Quoting Brokenrecord (Reply 9):This may sound harsh, but frankly, we need some more criminals to die. There are too many as it is. I think if more people were executed Singapore style, then the US would have a lot less crime.

If you were someone waiting on death row for a crime that you did not commit (in the wrong place at the wrong time), do you think you would still agree with the death penalty..... I think it is good the person was at least not innocent but America should get rid of the death penalty completely. Just because a person has done something wrong does not mean they will continue to do that for the rest of their lives. A prop per system is one that, in my opinion allows the person to do good and help others in society.

Quoting STLGph (Reply 5):"Missouri has an error rate of '30%' in death penalty cases."

Denise Lieberman, Missouri ACLU Director, fall 2003

The Rutherford Institute has established Virginia has 68% percent of death penalty rulings which are the result of 'misconduct and incomptetent counsel'

June, 2003

This is misleading. A conviction being overturned on the grounds of inadequate counsel is not the same as someone being found innocent. I personally feel that there have been enough instances where DNA evidence has conclusively excluded a person who has been previously convicted and sentenced to death that the system needs to be re-examined.

Remember, DNA never can be used to conclusively to 100% certainty say that the person did it. DNA evidence can say that to a statistical certainty the samples match.

I think to execute anyone without having all possible DNA evidence tested PRIOR to their execution is simply a denial of substantive and procedural due process and therefore unconstitutional.

IMO the standard of proof for capital crimes needs to be much higher. I believe that you should need a confession, DNA evidence, forensic evidence or eye witnesses that can conclusively establish that the person committed the crime.

Eye witnesses are not very reliable. I remember watching a TV program where they showed a picture of a man running away from a shop on CCTV and then after the break asked the people who watched the clip to think of the colour trousers the man was wearing out of a number of choices. I got it wrong and they said a lot of others would have as well, as time goes by details can become blurred.

This is misleading. A conviction being overturned on the grounds of inadequate counsel is not the same as someone being found innocent. I personally feel that there have been enough instances where DNA evidence has conclusively excluded a person who has been previously convicted and sentenced to death that the system needs to be re-examined.

Remember, DNA never can be used to conclusively to 100% certainty say that the person did it. DNA evidence can say that to a statistical certainty the samples match.

I think to execute anyone without having all possible DNA evidence tested PRIOR to their execution is simply a denial of substantive and procedural due process and therefore unconstitutional.

IMO the standard of proof for capital crimes needs to be much higher. I believe that you should need a confession, DNA evidence, forensic evidence or eye witnesses that can conclusively establish that the person committed the crime.[/quote]

Good work mistah Pope.

For the information of the general populace, it is only the uninformed who say "The US has the death penalty".

There are fifty states here as well as some territories and a commonwealth and a fair number do NOT have the death penalty.

I'm an attorney and a former prosecutor. I live in Iowa and I can tell you that every county attorney I've ever spoken to on the subject is eternally thankful that we do NOT have the death penalty and have NOT had it since 1964-which was well before most of Europe abolished it with the notable exception of Germany-take a bow, Klaus and Thorben, you're on the right side of THIS debate.

There are a number of states (12? 13?) that do not have the death penalty. If nothing else, not having it truncates the appeal process for criminals-they are not automatically guaranteed a trip thru the federal system as condemned men are.

Mister Pope, I do not agree with you about the utility of confessions. I suggest you study the Reed technique and your study of the work of Reed and Inbau in this context. I had the opportunity to ask Professor Scheck about this very subject and it wasn't even on the radar screen. Falso confessions are as common as bad eyewitness identification.

For those of you interested in more than a casual exercise in US bashing, I suggest the following topics.

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 16):Mister Pope, I do not agree with you about the utility of confessions. I suggest you study the Reed technique and your study of the work of Reed and Inbau in this context. I had the opportunity to ask Professor Scheck about this very subject and it wasn't even on the radar screen. Falso confessions are as common as bad eyewitness identification

Obviously, you have an expertise on this issue that trumps anything I can add on the topic. As a arm chair political afficionado I try to stay up to speed on this sort of thing but it's impossible to read everything and be aware of all the different studies out there.

I'll look for that study.

For the record, I used to be very pro-death penalty and still believe that most of the people convicted and sentenced to death committed the crime they were found guilty of. However, the demonstrated error rate (i.e. convicted and sentenced but actually innocent - not just overturned because of legal technicalities) is simply unacceptably high for a sentence as severe as the death penalty.

As a matter of public policy, I believe that the Supreme Court should revisit the death penalty and dramatically reconfigure the evidentiary standards required for the imposition of that penalty. While I fully respect each state's right to set up its own criminal justice system, I believe that the 14th amendment makes it clear that whatever they do needs to pass federal constitutional muster.

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 16):I'm an attorney and a former prosecutor. I live in Iowa and I can tell you that every county attorney I've ever spoken to on the subject is eternally thankful that we do NOT have the death penalty and have NOT had it since 1964-which was well before most of Europe abolished it with the notable exception of Germany-take a bow, Klaus and Thorben, you're on the right side of THIS debate.

During the nazi years the killing both without and with judicial "help" had gotten so far out of hand that it just had to be stopped. And we're still happy with that.

Quoting We're Nuts (Reply 7):The DNA test took longer to come back than his appeal? That's a serious problem.

Yeah, so if this test had come back and proven that he was innocent, that would have been kind of awkward, wouldn't it? How about finishing the testing before you kill the person? Just so you can cover your ass in case you get it wrong.

Quoting Pope (Reply 13):I believe that you should need a confession, DNA evidence, forensic evidence or eye witnesses that can conclusively establish that the person committed the crime.

I don't think that eyewitnesses alone should be able to condemn a person to death. Humans make mistakes (and can be pressured, even unintentionally, into making incorrect decisions) and while you may never be able to prove to an absolute certainty with forensic science or DNA evidence that someone did a certain crime, I would think they're a lot more reliable.

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 16):I had the opportunity to ask Professor Scheck about this very subject and it wasn't even on the radar screen. Falso confessions are as common as bad eyewitness identification.

Barry Scheck? Wow. There's an unbiased source for you.

Quoting Pope (Reply 17):Obviously, you have an expertise on this issue that trumps anything I can add on the topic. As a arm chair political afficionado I try to stay up to speed on this sort of thing but it's impossible to read everything and be aware of all the different studies out there.

Don't be so fast to give up your position. I'm also an attorney, yet I don't think my opinion on a given legal issue automatically trumps a layman's opinion, unless we are talking about factual aspects of a given law. When it comes to informed discussions on public policy issues such as the death penalty, the WORST thing the general public can do is cede the debate to those of us in the legal profession. Just because we hold a law license doesn't mean we should control the debate. After all, neither prosecutors or defense counsel can claim to be unbiased when it comes to controversial issues like the death penalty.

Quoting Pope (Reply 17):As a matter of public policy, I believe that the Supreme Court should revisit the death penalty and dramatically reconfigure the evidentiary standards required for the imposition of that penalty. While I fully respect each state's right to set up its own criminal justice system, I believe that the 14th amendment makes it clear that whatever they do needs to pass federal constitutional muster.

Assuming one could overcome the federalism concerns, the execution of this would be very easy. Just make the states follow the current federal model for capital cases.....

"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 21):Assuming one could overcome the federalism concerns, the execution of this would be very easy. Just make the states follow the current federal model for capital cases.....

Though I am not an attorney, I know enough about the evolution of federalism in the 20th century to know that it is hardly an obstacle to the application of the due process clause of the 14th amendment. Hell if federalism were a concern, 90% of what our government did won't be deemed constitutional.

As for me giving up my position, I'm not doing that at all. I'm just saying that I'm not up to speed on the technical merits of the evidence as presumably discussed in those studies. I think members of this forum often try to interject opinion into factual discussions and facts when the matter is one of opinion. Instead of expressing my opinion on something that is fact based (though I'm sure the statistical evidence present therein is skewed one way or the other), I just said, I've got nothing factual to add to address your point.

Quoting Pope (Reply 17):As a matter of public policy, I believe that the Supreme Court should revisit the death penalty and dramatically reconfigure the evidentiary standards required for the imposition of that penalty.

WTF??? What does the supreme court have to do with it? It's up to the legislatures to decide what punishments should be allowable and what proofs should be acquired to obtain it.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 24):WTF??? What does the supreme court have to do with it?

I'm surprised that this comment would come from you given the understanding of our system you've previously demonstrated. Because of the supremacy clause in the US constitution, any state act that conflicts with the federal constitution is void. If the Supreme Court rules that certain procedures need to be followed for a state sanctioned death penalty sentenced to be considered valid, then that is the law of the land. Any state who policies do not follow that minimum standard are unconstitutional and unenforceable.

For example, the USSCt has said that mentally incompetents can't be executed regardless of what state law says. There is nothing specifically on point in the Constitution on this but it falls under the 14th amendment guarantee of substantive due process.

Though I now personally think the death penalty is poor public policy I'm not necessarily advocating it's banning. What I'm saying is that in order to ensure that we don't continue to sentence truly innocent people to death it might be time for the Supremes to reconsider what sort of evidentiary standard is necessary for the imposition of this penalty.

The fact that there are something like 200 people who have been previous sentenced to death and then found innocent through DNA testing is indisputable. We can't ignore that reality and say that the system doesn't need some sort of re-evaluation in light of the technological advancement of the day.

Now be careful there. The constitutional protection is for substantive and procedural due process - not necessarily a favorable outcome. Indigent defendants are not entitled to the OJ defense team as a matter of right. There are going to be differences between the quality of attorneys rich people get and those that poor people get. We can set a floor to the level of representation afforded to the poor but we'll neve be able to guarantee that every innocent person is found innocent.

Quoting Pope (Reply 27):Though I now personally think the death penalty is poor public policy I'm not necessarily advocating it's banning. What I'm saying is that in order to ensure that we don't continue to sentence truly innocent people to death it might be time for the Supremes to reconsider what sort of evidentiary standard is necessary for the imposition of this penalty.

OK, stated like that it makes a little more sense. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that since the death penalty is a state issue, and thus is not an issue on which the federal congress can impose a standard, the supreme court can do it instead, as the only way to have a uniform standard.

That still reeks of court activism, which I intensly dislike. The supreme court should not be used as a surogate legislature when dealing with issues that should be resolved at state level.

Quoting Pope (Reply 27):What I'm saying is that in order to ensure that we don't continue to sentence truly innocent people to death it might be time for the Supremes to reconsider what sort of evidentiary standard is necessary for the imposition of this penalty.

You mean "truly innocent people" such as scum like Roger Coleman?

In the cases you claim to be "indisputable" where innocent people were wrongly sentenced, are you sure it was the lack of sufficient evidentiary standards? IOW, just what is wrong with the existing standards articulated by the SC?

[Edited 2006-01-14 00:47:36]

"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography

No. To me a truly innocent person would be someone convicted of rape that when the DNA is tested years later comes back as showing that it wasn't his semen inside the victim.

Don't try to paint me as a bleeding heart liberal. I'm a staunch conservative. Hell I'm frequently public enemy #1 on this forum by the "liberal mafia" . I just think that there have been enough instances where men on death row have been completely cleared of any involvement in the crime for which they were convicted and sentenced to death, that the issue merits reconsideration by the court.

I think many on the left also agree with me - which only serves to illustrate their hypocrisy on stare decisis. If it's an issue that they support, the Court should continue to rule the same way always respecting precedent. If it's an issue they oppose, precedent should be no obstacle to de novo review.

Quoting Pope (Reply 32):I just think that there have been enough instances where men on death row have been completely cleared of any involvement in the crime for which they were convicted and sentenced to death, that the issue merits reconsideration by the court.

But in all these cases where men on death row have been exonerated, that exoneration has taken place before they were executed. In other words, while the "system" might have failed at the trial stage, it worked at the later appellate stage.

I agree that process can be improved, which is why I'd be in favor on mandating that the every state still imposing the death penalty must use the federal procedures.

Quoting LesMainwaring (Reply 33):There is no place for the government to kill ... stick them in prison for life, but it is not any person's place to take another's life.

A "person" isn't taking another's life. The government at large is, and there is nothing wrong with the government eliminating the sociopathic scum who have established that they cannot live at large in civil society.

"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography